I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.

Click to expand...

based on what exactly ? he was drained out with those matches on grass itself by the finals and got pummeled by connors

Imagine those grueling rallies on clay with the likes of borg, orantes, vilas, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... @ 40 years old ....... fat, fat chance of rosewall being in any shape to compete by the time of the finals ( that is if he managed to reach there ! )

CC tennis was far more grueling then and very different when compared to the time of rosewall's peak ....

Rosewall was more formidable on clay than on grass at this time.
It is a mystery to me why he did not play RG after 1969.

Click to expand...

Old Rosewall was better on grass.easy, clay wears you down much more than the fast grass, so it is completely understandable that Rosewall´s greatest succeses in the 70´s came on grass and fast supreme, rather than clay or hard courts.

Peak Martina was much better than Evert. She beat Evert 13 times in a row at one point. She was far more dominant at her peak, losing only 1 or 2 matches a year. Evert didnt even deny Martina many majors, only 3 or 4, Martina by contrast denied Evert about 8-10.

Click to expand...

What about peak Martina-Hingis- vs peak Evert LLoyd ( or Evert Mills for that matter)?

Quick question. If peak Orantes played peak Kodes in the finals of the French, who is the favorite? I won't give my opinion but I'm curious about your answer. I'm not joking. Just wondering what you think.

Click to expand...

Not peak Orantes won the IO final against peak Kodes in 1972.Orantes was almost a peak player back then but IMo he was better from 1973 to 1976.

Kodes, however, had a tremendous fighting spirit.Connors, another fighter, always recognised that.

I guess we both agree that Orantes at that point would have been Nastase's toughest competition although Nastase would have been favored. Orantes defeated Nastase in four sets at the 1975 US Open in a match I was privileged to see in person. Nastase played well imo in that match but Orantes I believe was playing the best tennis of the tournament. Two of the greatest touch players in the history of tennis. I don't recall Nastase acting up in that match.

Click to expand...

Great for you to see that match.1975 FH was a terrific event, with Laver playing his last great tournament and bowing to Eddie Dibbs ( an underrated player IMO).The semifinal line up was exceptional, and the same for the ladies event.

Nobody acted against Orantes, who was worldwide respected for his sportmanship and honesty.Orantes beat Mc Enroe in the 1977 USO fourth round and Mac behaved very well.

Orantes and Nastase respected each other.Orantes was good friends with other megastars of his generation such as Borg,Vilas,Panatta.Connors respected him.Ashe,Smith and Rosewall praised in public the great sportmanship of Orantes.Many people missed him when he retired, not just because of his exceptional touch but also because he was probably the last player of the old school.

Orantes last great year was 77.In 78 he beat Ashe and Solomon to win Boston, but felt to Stockton at RG, a match he should have won.

Yes Newcombe was there. As was Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Panatta, Okker, Dibbs, Vilas, Metrevelli, Proisy, Connors, Ramirez, Orantes, Cox, Solomon, Ashe, Stan Smith, Borg, Richey Gimeno, Pilic, Taylor. Some of these players were not in their primes yet or past their primes but still excellent players. Borg for example beat the 9th seeded Richey in the first round. A sign of things to come I suppose.

I think it was an extremely strong field. To be honest while Laver and Rosewall could have won this tournament, it's very doubtful at their advanced ages. Laver was having some physical problems also.

I would think that Nastase won an impressive victory.

And of course Nastase was not unbeatable on clay but he was at his peak in 1973 and was a great clay court player.

Click to expand...

Kodes is not for me, PC1.He is a top ten whole decade included and anybody that watched tennis in the 70´s know that.

Key to this is the hth between Hoad and Trabert (2 and 0 for Hoad), and Rosewall (5 and 0 for Hoad, wow!), and the Davis Cup final (Tingay does not include the Cup play in his rankings) (there is a point in the first set against Seixas where Hoad hits a strong groundstroke and Seixas underestimates the power, and is actually knocked off his feet)
Following the 1953 season, Kramer offered a contract to only ONE amateur player, Hoad, to play against himself in 1954. Hoad stated that he wanted to win Wimbledon twice before turning pro. Some prophecy.

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

Click to expand...

Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

NadalAgassi, I agree that peak Navratilova was better than peak Evert but it may not have been as one sided as you may think. A good friend of mine pointed out that Navratilova was using the new racquets during most of those 13 straight matches that Navratilova won while Evert stuck to a wood racquet. After Evert switched to the new racquets of the time the matches were closer and Evert was able to defeat Navratilova.

My friend really knows tennis and I do think he has a decent argument.

Click to expand...

if your friend 'really knows tennis' they shouldve mentioned how after the 1981 u.s open she had to be fitter and dedicated herself to a new fitness and diet regieme..evert readily admits she was caught out by this 'new martina' and after a few defeats new she had to either retire, accept she was never going to beat martina again, or up her own level of fitness and commitment to tennis which is what she did..

i think everts losing streak to martina was ended at the 1985 french open final..

you may be right about the raquets i dont know...but it was the other stuff that was the big reason for change..martina much like lendl for the men brought in a new era of dedicated non partying focused superfit tennis players.

based on what exactly ? he was drained out with those matches on grass itself by the finals and got pummeled by connors

Imagine those grueling rallies on clay with the likes of borg, orantes, vilas, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... @ 40 years old ....... fat, fat chance of rosewall being in any shape to compete by the time of the finals ( that is if he managed to reach there ! )

CC tennis was far more grueling then and very different when compared to the time of rosewall's peak ....

Click to expand...

Rosewall had a very economical energy expenditure, it was the big hitters who got tired on clay.
In 1976, TWO YEARS after the Forest Hills loss to Connors, Rosewall gave him a tough 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 final on clay in California, a much tougher match, and Rosewall was not the least bit tired at the end.

Old Rosewall was better on grass.easy, clay wears you down much more than the fast grass, so it is completely understandable that Rosewall´s greatest succeses in the 70´s came on grass and fast supreme, rather than clay or hard courts.

But for other years I doubt that you ranked in a sober way. Maybe you have drunk a bit...

1953: I disagree even although Tingay did not consider Davis Cup and despite of Hoad's excellent hths.

1955: Hoad ahead of Rosewall? Have you found this on the bottom of your wine glass?

1958: Hoad ahead of Gonzalez: Your very own kind of rankings....

1963: Hoad ahead of Laver? You are the only expert to rank that way.

Now I begin to understand why you consider Hoad so high. Because he was No.1 or 2 for many, many years...

Click to expand...

I do not indulge in drink. Only dinner wine when guests are over. I recommend that approach to everyone.

The big match of 1955 was not the Australian final, but the Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV audience in NBC's very first color broadcast of anything.

In 1958, Hoad dominated the hth tour when healthy, including the greatest of all time match at Kooyong, was the leading money-winner on the tour, and won the Ampol world tournament championship. That's enough.

In 1963, Hoad had a winning hth against Laver, and beat Buchholz (Laver's conqueror) while playing on one leg. Not bad.
Hoad's peak was relatively brief, but included about 400 tour matches against the toughest collection of players ever assembled. That is sufficient room to evaluate.

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

Click to expand...

I notice that PC1 stayes on that thread that Rosewall would have won at least TWO MORE RG's in the early seventies if he had played there.
Is that what you wanted me to see? It agrees with what I have said.

Evert beat Navratilova 8 times at the buisiness end of majors..(4F, 4SF).

Click to expand...

The times one lost in the semis very rarely would the loser have won the title. There is a reason they were playing in the semis, it is because those times they were playing in the semis they were not the 2 best at the moment, the way they were 77-79 and 82-86. Especialy the ones where Evert beat Navratilova, which were always well outside of Martina`s peak periods.

Times Evert beat Navratilova in semis:

1975 U.S Open and 1976 Wimbledon- Goolagong was a much better player than Navratilova at the time, and their H2H around that period bears that out, as well as their general results and ranking. Goolagong would have won the title had Evert not been there.

1980 Wimbledon- Navratilova was in horrible shape around then, and by the end of 1980 was losing regularly to Shriver, Turnbull, 17 year old Mandlikova, everyone, and dropped to number 5 in the World at one point. Cant imagine her winning Wimbledon this year with any draw, unless she played Ruzica in the final or something.

1988 Australian- No chance on earth Navratilova comes close to beating Graf in the final on rebound ace, this is the most obvious one of all.

So Evert denied Navratilova at absolute most 4 slams, the 4 she lost to her in the finals. Navratilova beat Evert in 10 slams and Evert probably would have won atleast 8 of those 10 without Martina, so Martina cost Chris much more. This also shows how silly the remove so and so arguments are anyway though, as based on that Evert would be much better than Navratilova as she wins way more without Martina, than Martina does without Chris, yet it is Martina`s ownage of Evert in slam finals (10-4) which is why people clearly rate her better and often have them multiple spots apart.

Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

An older body takes longer to recover.

Click to expand...

PC1, I saw your earlier post, and you concluded that Rosewall would win at least TWO more RG's in the early seventies. What has happened to change your mind?

kiki, Rosewall had some revenge when he beat Orantes in 1977 (I don't know the surface of that Mexico tournament).

Click to expand...

Indoors since it was a part of the sensational WCT tour ( probably the toughest ever fields for a tour) and only Montecarlo and Houston were not indoors (clay).None of them did make it to Dallas, however.

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

Click to expand...

krosero, even though I understand your argument, I would yet say that Rosewall (and Laver for that matter) would have had good chances to win the French Open in 1970, 1971 and 1972 (not in 1973 though!).

Remember that Muscles won the Cincinnati 1970 clay event with top participation and going over 6 rounds.

He also won the 1971 Washington Star clay tournament, winning all six matches including wins against Laver and Smith.

In the French Open players have one day rest after every round. That might compensate for one round more than the mentioned events and for best of five matches.

Rosewall had a very economical energy expenditure, it was the big hitters who got tired on clay.
In 1976, TWO YEARS after the Forest Hills loss to Connors, Rosewall gave him a tough 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 final on clay in California, a much tougher match, and Rosewall was not the least bit tired at the end.

Click to expand...

Dan, I agree that Rosewall's game was very economic.

I believe you err regarding a 1976 Connors/Rosewall match on clay in California with that result. Please explain that match. I only know that Connors beat Rosewall in the 1976 Las Vergas event 6-1,6-3.

if your friend 'really knows tennis' they shouldve mentioned how after the 1981 u.s open she had to be fitter and dedicated herself to a new fitness and diet regieme..evert readily admits she was caught out by this 'new martina' and after a few defeats new she had to either retire, accept she was never going to beat martina again, or up her own level of fitness and commitment to tennis which is what she did..

i think everts losing streak to martina was ended at the 1985 french open final..

you may be right about the raquets i dont know...but it was the other stuff that was the big reason for change..martina much like lendl for the men brought in a new era of dedicated non partying focused superfit tennis players.

Click to expand...

Evert beat Navratilova at the Aussie in 1982 using her trusted woodie while Martina was using graphite. The racquet difference was a part of it although I am not sure how much. One could argue the reason for this Martina loss was her trying to adjust to graphite, and once she was used to it she started beating Evert consistantly while Evert had to come to grips and catch up. Arguably Martina switching first helped her big time in getting hers caught up in the H2H. It took Evert a while to adjust totally to the new racquet and Martina was the only one who could really exploit it. Martina handled the racquet change better and the power boost gave her even more confidence.

Martinas fitness definitely took Evert by surprise. Before all Chris had to do was lob and drop Martina or blitz the pass by her. Once Martina got fit she could make the move to net a lot faster and she couldn't be grinded out of a match. Chris knew she had to get fitter, plus she was so dog gone stubborn I do not think she wanted to quit admitting Martina had conquered her. Thats what made the 1985 and 1986 French finals so dramatic. 1985 was almost Everts revenge and last chance to win a major (or so it was thought).

Part of me says had Evert made the switch at the same time things might have worked out more in her favor historically...although I think also she was to stubborn to believe she needed graphite at all at first despite what she said to the public.

krosero, even though I understand your argument, I would yet say that Rosewall (and Laver for that matter) would have had good chances to win the French Open in 1970, 1971 and 1972 (not in 1973 though!).

Remember that Muscles won the Cincinnati 1970 clay event with top participation and going over 6 rounds.

He also won the 1971 Washington Star clay tournament, winning all six matches including wins against Laver and Smith.

In the French Open players have one day rest after every round. That might compensate for one round more than the mentioned events and for best of five matches.

Click to expand...

Agreed, certainly, with your argument, and with PC1's, that Rosewall had good chances to win RG in the early 70s but not in '73.

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

I notice that PC1 stayes on that thread that Rosewall would have won at least TWO MORE RG's in the early seventies if he had played there.
Is that what you wanted me to see? It agrees with what I have said.

PC1, I saw your earlier post, and you concluded that Rosewall would win at least TWO more RG's in the early seventies. What has happened to change your mind?

Click to expand...

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

The most fun doubles match I've seen was Zivojinovic and Becker against Noah and Leconte at the US Open. What power and great angle volleys from Leconte? It was in the Grandstand and it was packed. People talked about that match for years.

Click to expand...

Bobo was the first Yougoslavian/Serbian man to win a GS and be ranked No1 (dobles though).
Yeah, no kidding, at 6'6" 220lbs and weilding Prince Boron, the serve had to be a bomb!
He played often with Boom-Boom-Becker, who was his best buddy, too. Rumor has it, that Becker paid the ransom when Bobo's son got kidnapped...

Rosewall had a very economical energy expenditure, it was the big hitters who got tired on clay.
In 1976, TWO YEARS after the Forest Hills loss to Connors, Rosewall gave him a tough 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 final on clay in California, a much tougher match, and Rosewall was not the least bit tired at the end.

Click to expand...

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

The times one lost in the semis very rarely would the loser have won the title. There is a reason they were playing in the semis, it is because those times they were playing in the semis they were not the 2 best at the moment, the way they were 77-79 and 82-86. Especialy the ones where Evert beat Navratilova, which were always well outside of Martina`s peak periods.

Times Evert beat Navratilova in semis:

1975 U.S Open and 1976 Wimbledon- Goolagong was a much better player than Navratilova at the time, and their H2H around that period bears that out, as well as their general results and ranking. Goolagong would have won the title had Evert not been there.

1980 Wimbledon- Navratilova was in horrible shape around then, and by the end of 1980 was losing regularly to Shriver, Turnbull, 17 year old Mandlikova, everyone, and dropped to number 5 in the World at one point. Cant imagine her winning Wimbledon this year with any draw, unless she played Ruzica in the final or something.

1988 Australian- No chance on earth Navratilova comes close to beating Graf in the final on rebound ace, this is the most obvious one of all.

So Evert denied Navratilova at absolute most 4 slams, the 4 she lost to her in the finals. Navratilova beat Evert in 10 slams and Evert probably would have won atleast 8 of those 10 without Martina, so Martina cost Chris much more. This also shows how silly the remove so and so arguments are anyway though, as based on that Evert would be much better than Navratilova as she wins way more without Martina, than Martina does without Chris, yet it is Martina`s ownage of Evert in slam finals (10-4) which is why people clearly rate her better and often have them multiple spots apart.

Click to expand...

you are just imagining stuff.."evert probably thisandthatblahblah ??"..you dont know,

two goats x and y meet in semi, but so what because the loser if they had won would lose the final ?..you dont know that.

the point remains that they both had 18 majors and were direct rivals in sf f of majors for years and years.

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

Click to expand...

krosero. I agree. Maybe you understand also why I have some difficulties with Dan's kind of argumentation and why I use to answer him rather cynically. I do know I should stay a bit more calm...

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

Click to expand...

I do get annoyed when others are misrepresented and I am misrepresented. Either Dan is not understanding what I write correctly or he is doing it on purpose. I hope it's the former. Either way he's incorrect.

you are just imagining stuff.."evert probably thisandthatblahblah ??"..you dont know,

two goats x and y meet in semi, but so what because the loser if they had won would lose the final ?..you dont know that.

the point remains that they both had 18 majors and were direct rivals in sf f of majors for years and years.

Click to expand...

I am not imagining anything. Of course one cant guarantee Evert or Navratilova not winning the title all 8 times each lost in the semis, just as we cant guarantee them winning the title all 14 combined times they lost to one another in the finals. What we can safely believe though is that is LIKELY the vast majority of those 8 times they lost in the semis the losing semifinalist would have lost in the finals, and the vast majority of the 14 times they lost in the finals to one another the other would have won the title otherwise. I am pointing out the obvious, those periods they were playing in the semis there is a reason they were playing in the semis, one (or both) was not ranked in the top 2 in the World, and as that player ranked 3rd or often lower those times was the one usually losing in the semis, they were not the likely winner over the other higher ranked finalist even without the other thre. If you break down the 8 times one lost to the other in the semis, Navratilova or Evert would have been the underdog in all 8 finals had they won.

1975 U.S Open- Goolagong would have been heavy favorite over nowhere near prime Navratilova in final on clay.

1976 Wimbledon- Peak Goolagong would have again been heavy favorite over fat and still underachieving Navratilova.

1980 Wimbledon- Slumping and overweight Navratilova likely loses to Austin or Goolagong, or based on her late 1980 results a slew of other possible opponents pending her draw.

1981 U.S Open- Evert would have had decent chance vs Austin in final, although Tracy led her 9-4 from 79-81 and had spanked her in Canada recently.

1987 French/1987 Wimbledon/1988 Wimbledon- Graf was waiting in all the finals for aging Evert all 3 times, forget it (Evert's last ever win over Graf was early 86 before Graf had even won her first pro tournament).

The only one either had an even decent shot of winning without the other is Evert at the 81 U.S Open.

However really that isnt important to my point either. Since even if we count all the semifinal and final meetings we still have Navratilova beating Evert in 14 and Evert only Navratilova in 8, almost double for Navratilova beating Evert once again, so even someone delusional enough to believe most of the times they were losing in the semis they were going to win the title (despite that even the winning semifinalist who was generally the much stronger of the two at the given time of those semifinal meetings, 5 times out of those 8 went on to lose the final), Navratilova still denied Evert much more than vice versa, and had the clear upper hand in slams over Evert. Hence why Navratilova is rated multiple spots above Evert by so many people.

Of course Evert's amazing career deserves huge respect, but losing 13 times in a row to Navratilova and going 4-10 vs Navratilova in slam finals, is not going to be easily erased from peoples minds when they determine who was the better player. Furthermore many believe Navratilova is better than Graf, and most believe she is better than Court, while very few now believe Evert is better than Graf, and many dont even believe she was better than Court, so put that all together and naturally they will be often ranked 2-3 places apart atleast. People also remember Navratilova well into her 30s pushing Graf hard, and sometimes beating her. They also note Navratilova leading Graf 4-1 at the U.S Open, their most neutral possible meeting ground, despite Navratilova being 29 or older for 4 of those 5 meetings, she still won 4 of the 5 meetings, which doesnt look good at all for Graf in the comparision to Navratilova. Hence why many still think she is better despite Graf surpassing her singles record in most respects. By contrast they remember an aging Evert losing to Graf 8 times in a row and generally making virtually no impact at all (only 1 set won) once 16 year old Graf won her first tournament while Graf was only starting to head towards the start of her prime. Even much inferior players like Virginia Wade managed to beat Evert at an older age than Evert even once could manage to beat young Graf. So with Graf surpassing Evert's singles record as she also had Navratilova's, there is nothing about the Graf vs Evert confrontations which would help squeeze Evert about Graf despite Graf's greater slam count and general superior figures, the way Navratilova's meetings with Graf would, already putting a wedge between them in many lists, before even getting into the other players. On top of all that Navratilova's doubles record pulling her further ahead of Evert (and others like Graf who also did very little in doubles) to those who value doubles.

I believe you err regarding a 1976 Connors/Rosewall match on clay in California with that result. Please explain that match. I only know that Connors beat Rosewall in the 1976 Las Vergas event 6-1,6-3.

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

Click to expand...

Okay, so PC1 said it would be one, possibly two. That supports my argument that Rosewall would have won more slam events if he had continued to play the French, rather than skip it and hope for the best at Wimbledon.
Rosewall handled Nastase very well over five sets in 1976 at Hong Kong and 1977 (in a close three-setter) in Tokyo. Rosewall was the mentally tougher player, and Nastase seemed to be intimidated by him.

Dan, I doubt also that such a Californian match was played in 1977. The British World Tennis yearbook does not mention it.

But there was a Sydney match where Connors has won 7-5,6-4,6-2 where Muscles gave a magnificent performance, as John Thirsk wrote. Maybe you confused these two matches.

Click to expand...

That sounds like the score, all right.
But I watched the match on television, and thought it was in U.S. I remember that Hoad was present and was interviewed, and expressed his disgust with the result in physical terms.
I was quite certain that it was on clay.

Okay, so PC1 said it would be one, possibly two. That supports my argument that Rosewall would have won more slam events if he had continued to play the French, rather than skip it and hope for the best at Wimbledon.
Rosewall handled Nastase very well over five sets in 1976 at Hong Kong and 1977 (in a close three-setter) in Tokyo. Rosewall was the mentally tougher player, and Nastase seemed to be intimidated by him.

Click to expand...

Dan, the 1976 match was in four sets. Nastase did not try in the last set.

That sounds like the score, all right.
But I watched the match on television, and thought it was in U.S. I remember that Hoad was present and was interviewed, and expressed his disgust with the result in physical terms.
I was quite certain that it was on clay.

Click to expand...

It was indoors, probably on a fast or medium fast surface (Australian Indoors)..

Dan, the 1976 match was in four sets. Nastase did not try in the last set.

Click to expand...

Nastase had a bad habit of tanking whenever he felt that he was not being respected by the officials or the crowd, or if the crowd supported his opponent. He pulled the same stunt in the 1975 Canadian Open final against Orantes (Orantes was the crowd favourite in that match).
In Hong Kong, Nastase had lost the third set to Rosewall, and clearly gave up. I doubt that he could have won the match if he didn't tank, and he probably knew it himself.

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

Click to expand...

I agree with your point of Rosewall getting burnt out at Wimbledon.he had to overcome the two last great W champs, Smith and Newcombe.But I would not say that much about the 74 USO.

Tanner and Amitraj did not wera him down as much.

Connors had to fight a guy called Kodes, who would wear his opponents down.He had a tough path before meeting the 3 times GS champion.Stockton was not that much of a deal but he was just as much tired as Kenny should be.IMO.

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

Click to expand...

Overall I agree with you but to be honest I thought Rosewall was clearly inferior to Connors in 1974 and it didn't help that I felt at that point that the style of Rosewall did not match up well at that point with Connors. Add that the matches did take a lot out of him and you got the slaughters. Laver matched up better at that point because I believe his strong serve allowed him to take the net more than Rosewall against Connors although Laver in 1975 (challenge match) was also inferior to Connors.